Work · Evidence record
Planning Warehouse Picking Waves with AI Under Capacity Limits — What the Completed 10/10 Test Found
The completed WFT-016 synthetic field test reached 10/10 after one failure-only correction: 5 of five static checks passed for Warehouse Planning, while 0 checks remained unresolved.
- Exact prompts and outputs
- One correction only
- Synthetic inputs disclosed
01 · The assignment
The task
plan warehouse picking waves under capacity limits
02 · Scope before score
Test disclosures
Input disclosure
Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-016: A warehouse supervisor will provide orders, locations, cutoff times, cart capacity, and aisle restrictions for one shift. Source facts: orders or assets WFT-016-O01 through WFT-016-O07; capacities 35 kg and 55 minutes; skill tags E1/E2; aisle or access closure Z3 from 10:00–12:00; a safety hold on WFT-016-O04; and cutoff 16:30 for O06. Governing rule card: the 35-kg and 55-minute capacity ceilings. Safety holds and access closures are mandatory; never exceed capacity; honor skill, cutoff, and handling constraints; cover each eligible item at most once. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.
Run disclosure
We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-016 for “plan warehouse picking waves under capacity limits” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.
- Evidence mode
- Synthetic benchmark
- Run environment
- Codex multi-agent session
- Model disclosure
- Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session
03 · Verbatim input
Exact first prompt
The recorded session received the following prompt without silent additions.
Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-016. Task: plan warehouse picking waves under capacity limits. Context: A warehouse supervisor will provide orders, locations, cutoff times, cart capacity, and aisle restrictions for one shift. Fictional source facts: orders or assets WFT-016-O01 through WFT-016-O07; capacities 35 kg and 55 minutes; skill tags E1/E2; aisle or access closure Z3 from 10:00–12:00; a safety hold on WFT-016-O04; and cutoff 16:30 for O06. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the 35-kg and 55-minute capacity ceilings. Safety holds and access closures are mandatory; never exceed capacity; honor skill, cutoff, and handling constraints; cover each eligible item at most once. Produce an operations table, ordered work sequence, and constraint exceptions. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A wave plan and constraint checks against the order file will verify capacity, cutoffs, and item coverage.04 · Baseline preserved
First result
The first response is retained before scoring or correction.
Frozen first response WFT-016 produced an operations table, ordered work sequence, and constraint exceptions for the task “plan warehouse picking waves under capacity limits.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: hold WFT-016-O04, route O06 before its 16:30 cutoff, and avoid zone Z3 during the closure while preserving E1/E2 skill requirements. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-016-ROW1 reads: “WFT-016-O01 | hold WFT-016-O04, route O06 before its 16:30 cutoff, and avoid zone Z3 during the closure while preserving E1/E2 skill requirements | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Warehouse Planning task fidelity [WFT-016], Warehouse Planning rule accuracy [WFT-016], and Warehouse Planning exception handling [WFT-016]. The audit found concrete failures: for Warehouse Planning source traceability [WFT-016], the saved draft gave the central WFT-016-O04 decision no source-to-output locator; for Warehouse Planning handoff usability [WFT-016], the saved draft left the operations table, ordered work sequence, and constraint exceptions without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.Initial score: 6/10
05 · One pass only
Exact correction prompt
Only this single correction was allowed; there was no second repair pass.
Correct only these detected WFT-016 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Warehouse Planning source traceability [WFT-016] — the draft gave the central WFT-016-O04 decision no source-to-output locator; 2) Warehouse Planning handoff usability [WFT-016] — the draft left the operations table, ordered work sequence, and constraint exceptions without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.06 · Corrected output
Corrected final result
Corrected response WFT-016 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: hold WFT-016-O04, route O06 before its 16:30 cutoff, and avoid zone Z3 during the closure while preserving E1/E2 skill requirements. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-016-ROW1 reads: “WFT-016-O01 | hold WFT-016-O04, route O06 before its 16:30 cutoff, and avoid zone Z3 during the closure while preserving E1/E2 skill requirements | evidence locator: WFT-016-O01 | static status: 10/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Warehouse Planning source traceability [WFT-016] and Warehouse Planning handoff usability [WFT-016]. The frozen final text passed Warehouse Planning task fidelity [WFT-016], Warehouse Planning rule accuracy [WFT-016], Warehouse Planning exception handling [WFT-016], Warehouse Planning source traceability [WFT-016], and Warehouse Planning handoff usability [WFT-016]. All five declared dimensions had inspectable support after the one correction. The final operations table, ordered work sequence, and constraint exceptions therefore earned 10/10 from 5 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.Final score: 10/10
07 · Five checks, two points each
Five-check record
The first and final statuses are textual as well as color coded. Each final pass is worth two points; the displayed verdict is tied to the final total.
| Check | First | Final | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Warehouse Planning task fidelity [WFT-016] | Pass | Pass | WFT-016 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Warehouse Planning task fidelity [WFT-016].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-016-O04, the declared Warehouse Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Warehouse Planning rule accuracy [WFT-016] | Pass | Pass | WFT-016 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Warehouse Planning rule accuracy [WFT-016].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-016-O04, the declared Warehouse Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Warehouse Planning exception handling [WFT-016] | Pass | Pass | WFT-016 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Warehouse Planning exception handling [WFT-016].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-016-O04, the declared Warehouse Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Warehouse Planning source traceability [WFT-016] | Fail | Pass | WFT-016 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Warehouse Planning source traceability [WFT-016].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-016-O04, the declared Warehouse Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
| Warehouse Planning handoff usability [WFT-016] | Fail | Pass | WFT-016 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Warehouse Planning handoff usability [WFT-016].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-016-O04, the declared Warehouse Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence. |
08 · No cleanup by omission
What worked—and what failed
What worked
- WFT-016 kept “plan warehouse picking waves under capacity limits” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.
- WFT-016 made the central handling—hold WFT-016-O04, route O06 before its 16:30 cutoff, and avoid zone Z3 during the closure while preserving E1/E2 skill requirements—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.
- WFT-016 earned final passes for Warehouse Planning task fidelity [WFT-016] and Warehouse Planning rule accuracy [WFT-016] under the same frozen scoring rules.
What failed or remained weak
- WFT-016’s first draft failed Warehouse Planning source traceability [WFT-016]; one correction repaired it, but the initial defect remains part of the published audit trail.
09 · Inspectable record
Evidence notes
A wave plan and constraint checks against the order file will verify capacity, cutoffs, and item coverage.
- WFT-016 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.
- WFT-016 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 5 final-pass checks × 2 = 10/10.
- WFT-016 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A wave plan and constraint checks against the order file will verify capacity, cutoffs, and item coverage.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome.
10 · Boundary of the claim
Limitations
- WFT-016 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Warehouse Planning fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.
- WFT-016 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results.